The Video Stream Be Used? ($499) to Encode the Video at the Desired Bandwidth and Send It to the Internal Streaming Server
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COVER STORY HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE? THEWADING VIDEO STREAM Quality or value? Streaming server software provides both. The images might not be as crisp as those of hardware encoders, but their price—typically free—makes them hard to resist. Still, if you need the ultimate in quality, consider a hardware encoder. Buckaroo Banzai sweeps in to save Penny 44 EXECUTIVE Priddy and retrieve his oscillation overthruster SUMMARY »from the evil Lord John Whorfin just in time to save the Earth from ... 46 E-MAIL POLL Wait a second! Your users aren’t watching full- RESULTS screen movies at their desktops. They’re doing serious work. Corporate training. Videoconfer- 48 HOW WE encing. Distance learning. But they’ll do it better TESTED if they can see clear, full-motion images on their computers. Bringing video to the desktop is an 61 WHAT PRICE important cost-saving step for the enterprise. STREAMING Your job is to find the best technology to deliver VIDEO? it to your staff and partners. Enterprise customers have two primary BY DARRIN WOODS I PHOTO BY WENDY IDELE 42 NETWORK COMPUTING I 3.18.2002 I www.networkcomputing.com COVER STORY REPORT CARD Streaming Video Software Apple Computer RealNetworks Microsoft Windows choices: hardware-based MPEG Weight Darwin Streaming Server 4 RealSystem iQ Media Services encoders or software-based encoders VIDEO QUALITY 40% 4.1 3.7 2.5 combined with streaming servers. CLIENT OS COMPATIBILITY 15% 3 5 3 From an ROI (return on investment) COST 15% 5 2 4 EASE OF SETUP/USE 15% 4 5 3 perspective, most enterprises will SERVER OS COMPATIBILITY 15% 5 5 1 find it easiest to recoup their invest- TOTAL SCORE 4.19 4.03 2.65 ment on the streaming servers, since B+ B+ C– those servers are often free. Further- A≥4.3, B≥3.5, C≥2.5, D≥1.5, F<1.5 A-C GRADES INCLUDE + OR – IN THEIR RANGES. TOTAL SCORES AND WEIGHTED more, streaming servers can conserve SCORES ARE BASED ON A SCALE OF 0-5. CUSTOMIZE THE RESULTS OF THIS R EPORT C ARD TO YOUR ENVIRONMENT USING bandwidth, since it’s often possible to THE I NTERACTIVE R EPORT C ARD®, A J AVA APPLET ON N ETWORK C OMPUTING O NLINE, AT WWW. NETWORKCOMPUTING. COM. send decent quality images even over a dial-up connection—a trick hard- top within an organization, MPEG is tems, but neither was willing to put ware encoders can’t perform. probably not the solution. But con- its money where its mouth is. Miner- On the other hand, hardware versely, streaming servers may not be va Networks and Path 1 Network encoders provide the ultimate in the best solution for providing a Technologies didn’t have finished quality. While the MPEG encoders high-quality video signal to board- products ready to show. Amnis and have a higher entry cost and greater rooms or sales meetings. VBrick have similar products and cost per seat than do the streaming On the hardware encoding front, delivered essentially the same quality servers, they have the advantage of we asked several vendors to partici- throughout our testing. being one-box solutions that need no pate in our tests and found only two We wanted to test cross-platform additional hardware outside of the that had the guts to show their stuff: compatibility to see which vendor video source and a network connec- Amnis Systems and VBrick Systems. could deliver to something beyond a tion. To deliver video to every desk- We invited Optibase and Cisco Sys- Microsoft Windows-centric network but found that our two participants were just that: Windows-centric. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Worse yet, we found that, because of driver and DLL problems, they would STREAMING VIDEO not operate on the same machine. An enterprise would therefore need to P video has come a long way. The quality has improved dramatically, and the choose one or the other to use for its corporate video solution. Even with expense is relatively low—even free, if you use software-based streaming-video the incompatibilities, it was a tough Iservers. And digital video is not just for downloading clips from the Internet decision to choose one over the other. anymore. Within the past year, companies have begun exploring the use of video In the end, we chose Amnis’ offering for a variety of internal purposes to drive down other expenses, such as travel, as our winner, because of its one-box solution and multiple resolution and while giving employees access to videoconferences, training sessions and other bandwidth capabilities. high-quality visual applications. But you can still expect a trade-off between the relatively inexpensive software n the streaming server side, we found the compatibility servers from Apple Computer, Microsoft Corp. and RealNetworks and the pricier dreams that are made of. hardware-encoding solutions from Amnis Systems and VBrick Systems. Both hard- O Unlike hardware encoders, the main ware and software solutions provide good-quality video. The software solutions let issue with these servers is, indeed, video traffic run at lower bit rates than hardware encoders require, but there’s a visu- compatibility. Our three partici- pants—Apple Computer, Microsoft al cost: Image quality degrades when it’s transmitted at lower speeds. and RealNetworks—proved that their Our review of streaming video options covers the three major software servers, players could work on multiple oper- Apple’s Darwin Streaming Server 4, Microsoft’s Windows Media Services and Real- ating systems and deliver some level of quality video to each. We graded Networks’ RealSystem iQ. We also examine Amnis’ NAC-3000 and VBrick’s 3200 each on quality, compatibility, ease of and 6200 hardware-based streaming-video solutions. Apple edged out its competi- use and price. tion, while Amnis just barely beat VBrick on the hardware side. After we spent weeks in arduous testing and watching our favorite 44 NETWORK COMPUTING I 3.18.2002 I www.networkcomputing.com video to the desktop is a great bene- COVER STORY Does your organization plan to deploy fit. This quality and simplicity come real-time desktop video? with a price, though. Each player movie over and over, our numbers that is deployed to the desktop will 26% 20% showed that Apple’s Darwin Stream- cost anywhere from $30 to $150 per ing Server 4 and QuickTime Player 5 unit. If you have an enterprise of sev- 18% 24% package deserves top honors. Apple eral thousand employees, the per- 12% proved it could deliver a robust server seat costs could drive the expense to and client that performed well. Its the moon. You should also consider images beat the competition over a the additional bandwidth necessary We have deployed real-time desktop video range of bandwidths. Best of all, the to deliver this video to the desktop, Yes, within six to 11 months software is free, regardless of which as these devices typically encode Yes, within 12 to 24 months Yes, beyond 24 months operating system you’re running. either MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 streams No RealNetworks’ RealSystem solu- and require an average of 1.5 Mbps Source: NETWORK COMPUTING E-Mail Poll tion took a close second and fell well of your network. behind Apple in the price category, software being given away, finding since the costs of RealNetworks server fault with it is hard. software escalate into the thousands of STREAMING SERVERS We tested Darwin Streaming Serv- dollars, based on the number of view- er public beta 4 on an Intel-powered ers you wish to serve. Finally, + APPLE DARWIN whitebox running FreeBSD, as well as Microsoft’s Windows Media Services STREAMING SERVER 4, a Macintosh G4 PowerMac running fared poorly in all but the highest- QUICKTIME PLAYER 5 Apple’s OS X. Since a FreeBSD ver- bandwidth quality tests. If you’re run- B sion of the beta was not available, we ning Windows 2000 Server and all When most people hear the word downloaded the source code and gave your clients are Windows-based, this Apple, they immediately think of solu- it a quick compile. software is a no-brainer, but it’s truly tions that require adding Macintosh Once the server was started, it was the least common denominator in computers to their networks. With ready to go. A browser-based inter- streaming video. Apple’s Darwin Streaming Server, this face is available to create playlists (a couldn’t be fur- group of movies to be shown in suc- WHEN QUALITY IS THE NAME # ther from the cession) as well as manage the server Although all three software-based truth. Apple’s and set up downstream proxy servers. streaming servers we tested can EDITOR’S CHOICE streaming serv- All we needed was the stats page, as transmit good-quality video at higher er is available for several operating everything else gets set up automati- bandwidths, they require at least one systems as a precompiled binary or as cally. To play prerecorded video, computer to encode and a second to source code. In our blind testing, our copy the file to the server and place deliver video. You may want a solu- judges picked the images from our it in whichever directory you have tion that is easier to administer. Hav- Darwin Streaming Server as either specified to contain streamed files. ing one piece of hardware that can the best or the second best in our five The server has no problems deliver- encode and deliver high-quality bandwidth tests. And with the server ing the same clip to several players at the same time or in staggered play- APPLE DARWIN VIDEO STREAM back tests.